If there's ever an AA5, it should be a respawn game

Whiplash27Whiplash27 Posts: 1,549Player
edited June 11 in General Discussion
Some may say, blasphemy! I say it's the only thing that would have a chance of becoming popular in the modern gaming environment. Round based games in 2018 need to be extremely fast paced in order to success. Something that AA is honestly not made for. People say that the new faster AA is too much made for the comp guys. Maybe a respawn game would allow for that slightly slower pace to return while still being interesting to watch and even comp friendly.

Additionally, games need to do something unique to succeed. The last thing any game wants to be labelled is generic. There's only so much you can do in a round based game to not be labelled a CS, CoD, or Siege clone. There aren't a ton of ideas out there that can set you apart. Yes, I know CoD is mainly a respawn game, but take the round based modes of CoD and how are you different?

That's the main thing the AA dev team needs to ask, how can we make ourselves unique? A respawn mode with Attack/Defend and Attack/Attack modes can certainly allow the dev team to get creative in this regard.

Old maps can still be included, but at a much larger scale. Imagine a massive version of pipeline where the team can do the thing with the valves, but also go for CP. Upon completing the objective to win the round, the attacking team is awarded new reinforcements or maybe the defense team loses reinforcements. Maybe a version of urban assault that's double the size. You could also have sequential rounds where the attack team has to push various points (or complete objectives) to move to the next section (similar to Team Fortress). Capture the flag mode, VIP, all of those things can still exist. You either push to a new area or one team gains/loses reinforcements. A team escorting wounded soldiers out of a combat area, among other things, get creative, use real life combat scenarios as a guide.

Teams and/or players can even be rewarded as the game progresses.
Players can gain new attributes as they perform their roles in a game. Better aim, faster reloading, quicker healing, quieter footsteps, among other things.
Teams can maybe gain or just be given the ability to call an air strike, helicopter support, or ground vehicle support. Events that are extremely limited per team (maybe 1 per game) and can be executed in order to change the tide of the battle.

Squads can have players with various roles, just like now. Riflemen, medics, among other things.
Medics can treat wounded players (stall bleeding, treat wounds to erase negative effects, maybe very slightly restore life) while also treating downed players, not in order to bring them back into the fight, but instead to stabilize their injuries and evac them. Doing so can maybe give a team extra reinforcements, instant spawn waves, or some other reward.
You can have guys who control robotics which can maybe disarm bombs, attack enemies, maybe even remotely take objectives.
Other guys who build fortifications and other defensive or offensive structures.

The list goes on. The team can get creative and do all sorts of stuff. Include upcoming technologies and various other cool army gadgets. Sure, it may sound like a battlefield without the vehicles or CoD-type game, but the Army can try to make it as unique as possible.

Another idea would be for a create your own soldier type mode where you guide your guy through training and such. Maybe even customize their look and attributes. Some people may make a guy who moves more quickly, another who has more steady aim, another who shoots better on the move, completes actions more quickly, is more agile, gets less shaken up by explosives and gun fire around them, among other things. Every soldier would be a little different from the other.

Also, if you want to diversify weaponry, you can include weapons from our Allies. Just another thought.

Anyway, if there's ever an AA5, it needs to do something unique. When you really sit down and look at AAPG and remove all of the Army branding, it's hard not to call it a generic shooter. Sure, it does some things well, but it also doesn't really do much to stand out and be unique. It's part of why I eventually see a game like PUBG losing favor once other BR games come out. Nothing unique about it, generic as can be.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!

Comments

  • Hc|CAPTAIN(HUN)Hc|CAPTAIN(HUN) Posts: 94Player
    Hi. Nice ideas, but. This is the Us army game with low budget and the devs do what the army tells them to do, ( so far I know). It was never a goal to be unique to have millions of players. I think the army does not wannt to become an aaa gamestudio. I prefer to stay realistic and not respawn mode and fulfill the AA games feeling.




    Hc|Captain(HUN) -
  • Whiplash27Whiplash27 Posts: 1,549Player
    edited June 12
    Hi. Nice ideas, but. This is the Us army game with low budget and the devs do what the army tells them to do, ( so far I know). It was never a goal to be unique to have millions of players. I think the army does not wannt to become an aaa gamestudio. I prefer to stay realistic and not respawn mode and fulfill the AA games feeling.

    The thing is that the original America's Army was one of the most popular games of its time. I know that the Army can only do so much with the resources that they have, but what's the point of making new public facing video games if you don't want to get the game into as many hands as possible to spread the message? The game is supposed to be a PR tool. Whether that means just giving people a different viewpoint of what the Army does or actually getting recruits. If only a handful of people see that game, then what's the point?

    I think the main thing that any AA game needs to be is team play oriented and slightly more on the realism side with enough arcade to make the game fun. None of the AA games have ever been full blown simulators. At the time the original AA was one of the more realistic games in the market, but today it's not even close.

    If there's ever an AA5, they need to figure out some place to fit in with the modern gaming environment. We're no longer in a time where America's Army: Operations comes out and is the first real modern military quasi-realistic round based shooter and blows everyone away.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 441Player
    edited June 13
    Meh, I don't know. Respawns would mean the end of me playing the AA series. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a sequential round...like (re)spawning in waves after meeting sub-objective. But even that would be a hard sell to me and probably most of this community.

    What I'd like to see happen is to let a real development company take over this game. I know there are problems with a company profiting by using the Army name, but there's gotta be some way around it. Let that company put their logo in the corner of the startup screen somewhere. Go back to charging a little bit for "honor" servers and let that money go back into a pot to help pay the contract fee. The contract is valid for 2-3 years w/ a 4th year option. Contractually obligated bi-annual / semi-annual updates, or a rough road map w/ timelines to follow. Accept bids from competitors in the 3rd year of each contract, unless happy with the previous company, which the Army could extend the contract for that optional 4th year.

    Army owns the code and steers the "big picture" of the game, and let the professionals get down in the weeds. Utilize a combination of longstanding community members, professional FPS gamers, developers, and Army personnel to sit on some sort of panel. This panel serves as a quasi think tank, sounding board for ideas, and community feedback vehicle for the Army GS's and O's making the decisions. The intent would be for this panel to not steer the direction of AA, but to serve as a respected advisory role to the existing decision makers.
    b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
  • Whiplash27Whiplash27 Posts: 1,549Player
    edited June 13
    doogle! wrote: »
    Meh, I don't know. Respawns would mean the end of me playing the AA series. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a sequential round...like (re)spawning in waves after meeting sub-objective. But even that would be a hard sell to me and probably most of this community.

    What I'd like to see happen is to let a real development company take over this game. I know there are problems with a company profiting by using the Army name, but there's gotta be some way around it. Let that company put their logo in the corner of the startup screen somewhere. Go back to charging a little bit for "honor" servers and let that money go back into a pot to help pay the contract fee. The contract is valid for 2-3 years w/ a 4th year option. Contractually obligated bi-annual / semi-annual updates, or a rough road map w/ timelines to follow. Accept bids from competitors in the 3rd year of each contract, unless happy with the previous company, which the Army could extend the contract for that optional 4th year.

    Army owns the code and steers the "big picture" of the game, and let the professionals get down in the weeds. Utilize a combination of longstanding community members, professional FPS gamers, developers, and Army personnel to sit on some sort of panel. This panel serves as a quasi think tank, sounding board for ideas, and community feedback vehicle for the Army GS's and O's making the decisions. The intent would be for this panel to not steer the direction of AA, but to serve as a respected advisory role to the existing decision makers.

    It certainly makes sense for the Army to use an external game developer, but I honestly fail to see how a game like this can stand out in the current market. If AA2.x released today on UE4, what would make it different compared to the major FPS games in the market? Most specifically CS, CoD, and R6:S. Why would someone choose America's Army over those other games?

    Free is not the answer especially since CS is dirt cheap these days and the other games tend to go on sale for cheap enough. AA was the right game released at the right time. It was a modern day quasi-realistic shooter released at a time when the market was over saturated with WWII shooters. That was a huge part of its popularity. The market has been flooded with similar games ever since. Sure, none have been exactly the same, but most have been similar enough.

    Also, I don't think the modern gaming market will take a game where you die and have to wait 7 minutes to get into the next round. That's why AAPG kept shortening the round times and it became yet another fast paced shooter with more basic features compared to other mainstream games. In order to be successful a modern game needs to be fun for public play, fun to watch on Twitch, and good for competitive play. Those are the three important factors to success. If you can manage to make one that does those things in an interesting and unique way, you can be the next big thing or at least create a game that can build a long lasting and fairly large community.

    Look at R6 siege. Steam shows it peaking well over 100K players plus those who bought it on UPlay (like myself). That's three years into the game's life and more so, the game kept growing throughout its life. That's a success even if it's not PUBG or even CS levels.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 441Player
    I think the R6 games get carried a little bit due to the name recognition. AA could have had that luxury also, but they screwed the pooch with AA3 and lost the bulk of their player base and momentum. But you do make a lot of good points.

    AAPG is terrible to watch, which I think is partially because FLO has too many people on maps and the pace is (or can be) too slow with minimal strategy required. BDX has the potential to be a little more exciting to watch, but it's simply not the popular play choice of the community. In my own personal opinion, BDX also fails due to the skill gap between players...it's easier to blend in and enjoy the game as a less experienced player in a FLO match versus getting wall-banged or dying in 15 seconds in a map better suited for aggressive players.

    Unfortunately for us, and even though we haven't seen real numbers, the console version seems to be doing really well. I think that's because there are limited quality FREE games on those platforms compared to PC. I think AAPG is getting lucky there and entering a market w/o much competition (free FPS), similar to what we had w/ AA1-AA2 back in the day. Circumstantial popularity.

    I can only hope the PS4 side continues to grow and perhaps serves as a feeder system to bring new players over to the only true platform FPS's should be played: the PC.

    Let's hope that the Devs hold true to the podcast that was released in the past: PS4 is the focus for now, but PC will not be ignored.

    Advertising is still probably the reason AAPG isn't a big hit. I think it's a good game, and for all its flaws, I enjoy playing it. I'd like to see a tiny esports event for AAPG teams, or an open tournament, at one of these big shows, like DreamHack. Get a slot on something like this: https://dreamhack.com/summer/byoc-tournaments .. I'm not into other games eSports other than LoL, but going to some of these events I sit and watch games like Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, Quake, Mortal Kombat, etc.

    b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Sign In or Register to comment.